Remember me, fuckers? >minimum hardware requirements >no

>>61514354
Anything 2k can do XP can do better
XP can do anything better than 2k~

File: m-0-1500283660-1500283664.gif (3MB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 650x650px

>>61514354
Probably the best thing Microshit has ever done.

Anything before and after is garbage.

>>61514354
Why not Gentoo?
>minimum hardware requirements
>no heavy GUI shit
>no hardware restrictions
>fast as fuck
>stable and easy to use
>no pajeets involved in its development

File: antec.jpg (116KB, 790x1000px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 790x1000px

>>61514413

win2kpro was what you needed during the time of windows ME and before windows XP.

my first custom build was win2kpro install.

>be 2002
>Go to computer hardware show for 16th birthday with mum so I can get all the parts for my PC
>take permit test and pass on way back from computer show
>get home, start building PC in my sweet antec case
>cal Invite match starts for DoD.
>my clan destroys like we always did (|101st|)
>go AFK and continue installing win2kpro on my sweet custom built PC

good times, /g/, good times.

>>61514354
Still my fav version of Windows. It was all downhill from here. I ran win2k pro until hardware drivers weren't available for it, think I gave up in 2007. It's still installed on one of my old P3 laptops.

>Remember me, fuckers
I remember when RAM wasnt cheap so people actually put half a seconds worth of effort into anything, instead of relying on 10GB of GC bullshit

>>61514694
I kek'd

>>61514354
2000 was the best, lots of memories using it back when 256mb ram was considered overkill. Was running this shit up until windows xp x64 edition and then used that with the classic theme.

>>61514413
this. 2k fucking sucked, by the time you loaded ZoneAlarm, Norton, etc to have a useful machine it would already BSOD

>>61514354
>Remember me, fuckers?

You were that suntanned dude taking a dump in the carpark back in 01?

>>61514354

it was really great if you had an airgapped pc

ill leave it at that

>>61514719
My Dad helped me build my first pc in 2002. He gave me a pre-release win2k that I stuck on it. Worked great until xp sp4 came along. I still run it in a vm in linux for cool edit pro and paint shop only it runs at about 3.7 gigs now. Your story brought back memories for me.

>>61514763
Run it in a vm dude. All your old .exe's are waiting for you. Ram drives even work on it in a vm.

yeah lets see..

p3 733mhz
196mb ram
20gb ata33 hdd
nvidia vanta lt
juno/net zero

those were the mother fucking days

>>61514354
I used to join these circlejerks but you bikeshedding millennial fucks make me want to scream with your braindead reddit-tier wrong generation bullshit. The GUI was easily the apex of Windows design, but not because it looks vaporwave as fuck and reminds you of your shitty childhood, it was great because it looked like everything else did for the last 15 years and thus it was consistent with fucking everything, while the massive design changes with XP and later clashed so much with the bland, business-and-low-resolution-friendly design that it really underscored how shitty Microsoft really was at designing a good-looking product even with the market's gun pointed right at their heads.

2K wasn't even that good on hardware requirements, you only say that because you've run it on well-endowed VMs or maxed to shit hardware that was probably brand new when it came out, it's a shit match for any typical and actually affordable system that was more than 3 years old when 2000 was released.

>>61514766
This stupid circlejerk is bullshit, too. Software was heavy as fuck relative to typical systems back then, you could barely run 2K on a five-year-old system, let alone a ten-year-old one like you can today, and that's just the operating system. The full stack would slow anything but a top-of-the-line system past the 1997 mark down to a fucking crawl while any old C2D shitbox from the thrift store can handle a typical Windows 10 stack just fine.

File: 1500740265156.png (19KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 800x600px

>>61514431
"wrong"

>>61516774
That's a DOS shell bro not an OS

>>61516756
>This stupid circlejerk is bullshit, too. Software was heavy as fuck relative to typical systems back then, you could barely run 2K on a five-year-old system, let alone a ten-year-old one like you can today, and that's just the operating system. The full stack would slow anything but a top-of-the-line system past the 1997 mark down to a fucking crawl while any old C2D shitbox from the thrift store can handle a typical Windows 10 stack just fine.
No, you're already talking about the early 2000's, by that time it was already over. Your system had memory protection and even when sluggish, it run on older machines. Not the low level assembly shit you did your best with because nobody would have bought your bloated software when it crashed all the time or couldn't run at all because memory restrictions.

>>61516756
>I used to join these circlejerks but you bikesh...
NIce blog, do you often rage on /g/?

>2K wasn't even that good on hardware requirements, you only say that because you've run it on well-endowed VMs or maxed to shit hardware that was probably brand new when it came out, it's a shit match for any typical and actually affordable system that was more than 3 years old when 2000 was released.
I think his point was that it was more lightweight than XP, which it actually was. Running it on an old P/MMX back in the early 2000's, it was indeed usable when compared against XP.

>>61516756
Thats really only relevant to the time period. Computer hardware was drastically improving back then, compared to the crawl its come to now.
You can use a core2duo PC with just about anything today because a core2duo can still do it just fine. Windows Vista came out in 2006 as well.
Over 10 years old now, 10 years before that would've been 1996 with 166mhz Pentiums which by no means could run an OS from 10 years in the future, Vista.
Thats just how it was.


In the case of Windows 2000, 95 and 98, they were outdated so incredibly fast simply because hardware moved past them.
It wasnt 2k's fault it ran like shit on older hardware. There was little time to optimize the system to run on older hardware, and at the rate technology was advancing, why even bother? If it was going to be outdated itself in a few years, why make it work on hardware a few years older? Nobody would be using it by then and nobody was, they moved to XP.
Then came vista which was a flop at first, and it gave M$ time to work on improving their OS over time. And hardware improvements began to slow down as well, again allowing for a specific era of OS+Hardware to last a bit longer, giving M$ time to improve their OS and get it to run on just about anything.

I used a 2k computer when it was new, granted i must admit it was in fact a "top-of-the-line" sort of system, it was a Willamette pentium 4 system just as 2k settled in.
And then came windows XP and it got replaced.

File: 1491376489354.gif (504KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 1080x1080px

>>61516756
>millennial fucks
I'm pretty sure you aren't a 40+ year old male.

>>61516858
>compared to the crawl its come to now
It is a crawl compared to then, maybe a 10% increase in performance every 1-2 years.

>You can use a core2duo PC with just about anything today because a core2duo can still do it just fine.
That's slightly overstated, a C2D machine will be okay for browsing, but have anything more, like a few tabs and programms running, it will be painful not fine, even with lots of memory.

>>61514354
I was actually considering installing it on Athlon 64 x2 with GTS 450, but couldn't install drivers on gts 450 (at least without hours of tinkering), so i decided to not bother

>>61516806
English isn't your first language, is it?
>>61516828
Nothing wrong about that, XP was fucking suffering even on a PII, but I never found the PMMX/2000 combo that great either from my personal experience with it. I stick with NT4.
>>61516858
I'm not blaming 2K at all for running like shit on exponentially slower hardware, I'm shitting on the idea of jerking off to its low requirements even though in practical terms it was, like most other older pieces of software, far less friendly to old hardware than the "heavier" software we have today in practical terms anyway. It's retarded to lament a time that never, ever existed.

>>61514354
i had to jump from 98 to 2k because xp didnt work on my 1st machine(years later i discovered it was bios issues)
shit just worked and it did fine
i remember getting mad at someone else using xp because it looked too stylish and modern like wtf are you a kid or something?
good times

>>61517173
>English isn't your first language, is it?
Is this an argument? I though you're a cool guy.

>>61517174

2k was out before XP... what the fuck are you talking about.

>>61514431
>NT4
>garbage

>>61517354
XP was worse then vista when it came out, almost pointless until SP1

>>61517354
reread the bios issues part
when i got my 1st pc xp was a thing already, but for some reason it didnt work around that time, so the only thing i found was 2k that managed to work on it
(my uncle was "old" and had 98 on everything so i went from a shitty linux that came in on the pc to 98 since xp didnt work)

>>61517354
They mean instead of upgrading from 98 to XP, they had to go from 98 to 2000 because of bios issues.

File: 1490524625482.jpg (14KB, 255x244px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 255x244px

>>61516756
10/10

>>61517215
It wasn't an argument, your post was unreadable.

>>61517735
Let me rephrase.

You where talking about the 2000's already, by then >>61514766 was already over.
The systems at the point had proper memory protection and even when it was bad, it was running fine on older machines.
It wasn't the low level assembly you did your best with because nobody would buy your broken/bloated software when it crashed because your incompetence or it wouldn't run at all because 99% of the people didn't have hardware beefed up enough to do so.

>>61514413
yeah
like activation
fisher price themes
lengthy sidebar menus for people who can't click cut/copy/paste on menu bar
security center because you haven't paid for antivirus

2k was the 1st windows os i didnt constantly have to reinstall

>>61514694
Popped in to say this, but about Arch
well meme'd good sir, I tip my fedora

>>61514719
sheeit, I remember that case. Was very popular for modding. I want those feels back :(

>>61515019
>by the time you loaded ZoneAlarm, Norton, etc
Shit bait.

>>61514354
>Hotdog stand theme

>>61522665
I just puked a little

>>61522673
>I just puked a little
You have shit taste friendo.

>>61516756
A a 3-5 year old higher end Pentium and about 128MB RAM (affordable in 2000) was more than enough for Windows 2000. You should have at least a 2GB HDD tho. I ran it myself on a Pentium 166 MMX system with 64MB RAM and a couple of 1.2 GB drives. It was a bit fiddly due to the limited space on C: and I didn't have as much RAM as I would've liked, but it was fine.

Running Windows 2000 on my later Pentium II and Athlon XP machines were a complete non-issue. The only thing that was annoying about 2000 was some older games refused to install because it detected that I ran NT (the detection script looked for NT, and earlier versions didn't support directx), and newer games that refused to install on anything older than XP. It was still a fine OS, and I loved using it back then. I still feel like operating systems have regressed in usability and simplicity since then. Operating systems got harder and more complicated to use, but I don't feel like they provide any more utility than 2000 (or even older operating systems) did.

/me sucks dicks

>>61514354
Also, fuck all security, shit drivers (until XP was launched), and no USB2 support.

>>61519742
Not sure what people did to their computers. I ran the same installation of 95 until about 2002.

>>61514719
Are those eMachines optical drives>

>>61519632
Can work around or disable all of those with just a few clicks.

File: snapshot_10.41_[2016.07.29_05.25.37].png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>61517173
>XP was fucking suffering even on a PII
no

>>61522803
It was pretty uninspiring when I ran it on an MMX-200. You could definitely do it, but it wasn't really the best.
>Operating systems got harder and more complicated to use, but I don't feel like they provide any more utility than 2000 (or even older operating systems) did
What are you doing on /g/ if you consider the same exact shit with saner searching and an extra control panel or two "difficult to use?" Stop letting nostalgia cloud your perception of reality.
I use NT4 and 2000 daily alongside my 7 systems. When I value convenience, responsiveness, security and usability over novelty, I will pick 7 every single time.
>>61523446
I ran XP on a 600E for years, it was fucking shit and I hated it.

>>61522891
Most of ME's issues were related to lack of drivers and no real mode DOS though. In a VM it's preferrable to 98 due to better stability, ME doesn't bluescreen every 5 minutes like 95 and 98.

>>61524479
Going to /g/ doesn't mean I should like how messy the control panel have become, or that you now have to go through 2-3 different ones to do what you could do with just one 15 years ago. Didn't need much of a search feature to use the control panel in 2k.

The only real reasons that make using 2k an annoyance today is lack of recent software and security updates.

>>61514354
Don't forget Swiss Cheese security.

I don't get why consumers would bother with anything NT until XP SP1. No backwards compatibility with DOS or 9x, no drivers and no consumer software.

>>61515628
i had a vanta lt 16mb i played the shit outta max payne and gta vice city

>>61514354

I worked at Staples and the absolute dogshit that I saw with Windows ME made me jump right from 98SE to 2000.

It was god tier. Sure some games wouldn't work initially, but as soon as XP came out the compatability was solid, without the XP GUI shit

>>61524774
Windows 2000 worked fine for consumer use, including gaming back in the early 2000s. When XP released, it got even better.

Windows ME was way too unstable and 98 SE wasn't much better.

>>61524774
>No backwards compatibility with DOS

dude, even windows 10 (the 32bit version) has fucking NTVDM

>>61524689
Don't forget Me has built in support for USB drives, so moving stuff to a computer with Me is hassle free.

File: NT_2k.jpg (1MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x1836px

>>61514354
Just hanging out at my parents' place and found these in an ancient case full of CDs I left here.

File: 1496092499751.jpg (13KB, 350x296px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 350x296px

>>61514354
>Virtually no support
>More vulnerable than XP
>Outdated browser and you would have to hex edit a firefox dll to get more updates.
Absolute garbage. I'd rather use Linux Mandrake.

>>61525939
>It was really great.
>was

>>61526047
And now it's a steaming pile of shit.

>>61516828
>Running it on an old P/MMX back in the early 2000's, it was indeed usable when compared against XP
BULLSHIT ALERT

>>61514354
>It was really great.
memory management

>>61526080
And? OP was clearly talking about how great it was when it was relevant. Go try to install your favorite Linux distro from a 2001 CDR on a modern PC and see how that works out for you.

>>61523421
the point is they're not needed in the first place and shouldn't be there. even if you have your favorite theme, you still have theme services, security center service, etc. all can be disabled with clicks, but I'd rather not have them in the first place.

>>61516774
win98 was double dogshit

>>61516756
This.

File: 1.jpg (44KB, 640x552px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x552px

>>61514354
>>61516774
Both of these are fucking abhorrent. You're both hipsters with shit taste. The most advanced OS in the 90s/early 2000s was IBM OS/2. It had a feature packed UI complete with tons of theme options and could run not only native programs but also had support for 16 and 32bit DOS and Windows applications. You would run DOS and Windows 3 in windowed mode in the OS. Nothing today even comes close. It would be like having a BSD distro that had built-in copies of Windows 7 and 10 that could run them in the OS with 99% software compatibility.

>>61514354
We still use Windows 2000 on our POS till at work (no joke)